3 ms·
> But the AI itself won't obsolete the scientific method I wouldn't put a lot of money on that in the future given that even 3 years ago AI could prove about 5
by csdvrx 5y ago
> But the AI itself won't obsolete the scientific method
I wouldn't put a lot of money on that in the future given that even 3 years ago AI could prove about 58% of a set of theorems: https://mathscholar.org/2019/04/google-ai-system-proves-over-1200-mathematical-theorems/ https://mathscholar.org/2019/04/google-ai-system-proves-over...
From that to inferring then proving new theorems in the future or even inferring new theories in other fields (that can then be tested empirically if needed) I think we're not very far from what the person you replied to suggested
- AstralStorm 5y agoHowever, it just modeled a known algorithm for solving theorems mechanically. 3-SAT predates ML, and it was trained using it. Essentially parroting an algorithm is not science. Call me again when AI develops a new theorem from scratch, in a concise manner
- programmarchy 5y agoWe have a tendency to reify science as something sacred or uniquely human, but the scientific method is essentially an algorithm. Like the article said, AI does not need to develop theorems in a post-theoretical mode of science. AI only needs a systematic way to make discoveries that are in the self interest of the system in which it's embedded. Humans may need theory to perform science, but only because we're slow and have bad memories is it necessary for us to rely on faint signals like intuition, eureka moments, and pulling all-nighters in the lab. Machines don't need narratives and metaphors to represent their knowledge of the world, nor do they need reason or explanations of how and why. They just need to function.